James Calwile v. Richard Bazzle
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JAMES CHARLES CALWILE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RICHARD E. BAZZLE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge. (6:07-cv-03100-HMH)
October 21, 2008
October 28, 2008
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Charles Calwile, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: James Charles Calwile, a South Carolina prisoner,
seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. this case to a magistrate The district court referred pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B) (2000).
The magistrate judge recommended that
relief be denied and advised Calwile that failure to timely file specific objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Calwile failed to file specific objections to the magistrate judge's recommendation. The magistrate timely filing of specific is objections to to a
appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned of the consequences of
See United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616,
621-22 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 127 S. Ct. 3032 (2007); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). Calwile has waived appellate
review by failing to file specific objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?